CPAC. The gun free zone where you complain about gun free zones

[peach174]

All Hotels which hold conventions have the policy of a gun free zone.
Each one has armed security by the hotels, it's their policy.
It has nothing to do with the cpac convention.

 

[kaz]

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Now you show what you are, just another liar. No one proposed that. We proposed allowing teachers and administrators with CC permits to CC. You just made that up proving you are fully aware of your status as having your head handed to you

 

[The Derp]

NYC requires it, easy to find out if you have the google skills of a 5 year old.

No, they don't require that. This is you making shit up.

No waiting period, and a $340 permit fee, not the $600 you claimed. So you exaggerated. Big surprise.

They said it could take up to six months to process, but that's not a waiting period. Also, the waiting period doesn't prevent you from getting the gun.

Do you really think they spend all that time doing searches? LOL, it sits on a desk for 4 months and then they just stamp it when they realize the person isn't going to give up.

If your argument is about the slow pace of bureaucracy, then why is it that you want to cut government spending?! This is what cuts to government spending do; they slow down bureaucracy.

And it doesn't matter on your last point, a right is a right is a right.
And after all, the person will eventually get the abortion, wasn't that your point about infringement before?Dumbass.

Sometimes abortions need to be performed for immediate medical reasons. What those reasons are is between the doctor and the patient, not you or the state.

 

[Lastamender]

Cartoon: Dereliction of Duty - NetRight Daily

 

[kaz]

right wing phonies . Blaming gun free zones is a favorite diversion of the gun nuts .

Yet CPAC was gun free! Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Trump trashes gun-free schools at CPAC 2018 -- where people aren't allowed to bring in guns

False equivalency

CPAC wasn't a gun free zone?

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

He's a liar anyway. He parroted the lie of his leftist idiot brethren that we want to arm children. They're so terrible at arguing, and they know it. So they have to pull stupid crap like that out of their ass.

Our choices are arming everyone including children or banning guns from school and hoping shooters follow the rules. Those are our only two choices. We have thusly been informed

 

[The Derp]

The only one doing twisting is you, My logic is sound, you keep making assumptions that have no basis in reality.

What assumption am I making? Please, articulate.

I don't believe you know what "assumption" means. I haven't made any assumption. You're the one who said you have "a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment". But then you go and make excuses and exceptions, which would mean your interpretation isn't strict.

So why are you saying it is when it isn't?

 

[kaz]

Parkland was a 'Gun Free Zone.' In fact, it even had a police officer permanently stationed there. Many schools have so-called 'Resource Officers' stationed. But the one at Parkland proved to be a coward by running and hiding when the children needed him most. What good was he? He could have saved many kids' lives.

So, you had a school which was a 'Gun Free Zone' and had an armed police officer permanently stationed there. Folks didn't do their jobs. If they had, more kids would be alive today. It's why i strongly urge parents to avoid the Government School System at all costs. They should seriously consider all education alternatives. Government Schools are only gonna get worse. They aren't the best option for children.

Conservatives ulaimtely want to destroy public schools, which is why they want to pour hundreds of thousands of guns into them.

I don't wanna destroy Government Schools. I just want parents to have as many education alternatives available as possible. No one should be forced to send their children into the Government School System nightmare. They should have many other options.

That plethora of options has seen a steady slide in education rankings in the US, since they were introduced, even as costs increase and Americans pay more out of their own pockets to educate their children than any other country in the world.

All you’ve done is syphon public funds away from public schools and into charter schools. Charter schools cherry pick the smart kids (to keep their rankings high), and dump the underachievers. Their schools aren’t better, their test results make it appear that way because no one who could make them look bad is allowed to stay.

Religious schools are just a new and better way to segregate. No blacks, no gays, no evolution, no science.

Bullshite! Communist/Democrat propaganda. The Government School System is failing all on its own. Parents need education alternatives. Government needs to stop trying to destroy those alternatives. Forcing parents to send their children into the Government School nightmare, is Un-American. Alternatives need to be available.

Bullshit. Every First World Nation relies upon a public school system to educate their children. And most of them do a far far better job than Americans, and they do so by spending a lot less money than Americans.

At every turn Republicans undermine and undercut public education. What’s most troubling is the push to charter schools and vouchers. Every time a public school is replaced by a charter school in poor areas, children disappear from the schools. Their parents can’t make up the balance of the tuition, there are no other schools they can go to, so simply keep their kids home.

Thousand of poor inner city kids are growing up with no education as a result of these policies. What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-with-charter-schools/?utm_term=.32f5cb652d3a

You think Republicans are the ones who want to spend so much on education? Seriously? What sewer did you crawl out of?

 

[Timmy]

I thought this thread would point out the gun nuts Hypocrisy. Instead it points out the gun nuts delusions.

 

[Lastamender]

I thought this thread would point out the gun nuts Hypocrisy. Instead it points out the gun nuts delusions.

What hypocrisy?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, basically you agree that Parkland should have metal detectors and not arming teachers and students.

Thanks, wasn't that easy?

I do agree that all schools should have metal detectors, sure don't see anything that suggests I'm against arming teachers...students no. You need to learn how to pay attention.

I am paying attention. The conservative response to 'gun free zones' is usually more guns. That is unless it comes to one of their own little shindigs. It's the hypocrisy that you are clearly trying to avoid.

Great, since you are paying attention, perhaps you can point out where I said "not arming teachers and students".

Somehow you think that CPAC throwing up metal detectors and disarming the 'good guys' isn't hypocritical? Or are you stuck on my rhetorical question demonstrating the rights hypocrisy?

The President and Vice President spoke at CPAC, and that means that the secret service determined that no guns were allowed except by security people. After all, it is really difficult ensuring that some left wing nuts are not there, attempting to shoot the President, in order to impress an actress.

lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Limited within a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and only the most unobtrusive regulations allowed.

So that seems awfully subjective, vague, and ambiguous. Limited, how? What constitutes obtrusive?

Let me ask you a question, NYC requires 3-6 months of waiting, and paying $600 or so in fees just to keep a revolver in your own apartment.Is that infringement or not?

No, because you're still able to get a gun. Your ability to get a gun was not infringed. If it was, you wouldn't be able to get a gun at all. Because "infringe" means what it means; "actively break the terms of" and/or "act so as to limit or undermine". You getting the gun in the end doesn't mean you were undermined or limited, nor does it mean any terms were broken.

No issue with parks. If libraries want to be gun free, then they create a secure space and have armed guards onsite at all times.

So you don't really support individual gun rights because if you did, you'd support an individuals right to carry a gun wherever they want, and any private business that refuses you to bring a gun in violates your rights. So that's why your "public places" argument is a load of horseshit. If you're arguing that it's a Constitutional right that you get to carry your gun wherever you want, then that means a private business is violating your rights if they ban guns. So CPAC violated Conservatives' gun rights.

Public transit is a tough one, due to the confined nature of most of it.

Why should that matter?

If some place doesn't want to me bring a gun with me, if they are a government facility or agency, or a public space, they need to take responsibility to making sure everyone follows the same rules, and there is security in place to replace my own defense ability.In Airports there is secure areas and security, in courts and most public buildings the same thing.

So your gun rights aren't universal or Constitutionally-protected if you're saying a private business can infringe on what you also describe as a civil right.

But I am limited arbitrarily by some government agency which delays the process.
So how about we impose a 2 week wait period and $100 in fees to get an abortion?

Or a fee and a wait period to vote?

It is infringement, and you not seeing that tells me all about you.

Constitutional rights are not absolute, you can't yell "fire in a crowded theater" and expect the 1st to protect you.

Because I am not an absolutist.

Again you are dealing with absolutes because it's probably the only thing you can understand.

Try to keep up.

False comparison fallacies.

Unlike laws regulating the right to privacy and the right to vote, laws regulating firearms are not subject to a heightened level of judicial review.

 

[Lastamender]

Limited within a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and only the most unobtrusive regulations allowed.

So that seems awfully subjective, vague, and ambiguous. Limited, how? What constitutes obtrusive?

Let me ask you a question, NYC requires 3-6 months of waiting, and paying $600 or so in fees just to keep a revolver in your own apartment.Is that infringement or not?

No, because you're still able to get a gun. Your ability to get a gun was not infringed. If it was, you wouldn't be able to get a gun at all. Because "infringe" means what it means; "actively break the terms of" and/or "act so as to limit or undermine". You getting the gun in the end doesn't mean you were undermined or limited, nor does it mean any terms were broken.

No issue with parks. If libraries want to be gun free, then they create a secure space and have armed guards onsite at all times.

So you don't really support individual gun rights because if you did, you'd support an individuals right to carry a gun wherever they want, and any private business that refuses you to bring a gun in violates your rights. So that's why your "public places" argument is a load of horseshit. If you're arguing that it's a Constitutional right that you get to carry your gun wherever you want, then that means a private business is violating your rights if they ban guns. So CPAC violated Conservatives' gun rights.

Public transit is a tough one, due to the confined nature of most of it.

Why should that matter?

If some place doesn't want to me bring a gun with me, if they are a government facility or agency, or a public space, they need to take responsibility to making sure everyone follows the same rules, and there is security in place to replace my own defense ability.In Airports there is secure areas and security, in courts and most public buildings the same thing.

So your gun rights aren't universal or Constitutionally-protected if you're saying a private business can infringe on what you also describe as a civil right.

But I am limited arbitrarily by some government agency which delays the process.
So how about we impose a 2 week wait period and $100 in fees to get an abortion?

Or a fee and a wait period to vote?

It is infringement, and you not seeing that tells me all about you.

Constitutional rights are not absolute, you can't yell "fire in a crowded theater" and expect the 1st to protect you.

Because I am not an absolutist.

Again you are dealing with absolutes because it's probably the only thing you can understand.

Try to keep up.

False comparison fallacies.

Unlike laws regulating the right to privacy and the right to vote, laws regulating firearms are not subject to a heightened level of judicial review.

Now explain yourself. Are you a judge or a lawyer?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All Hotels which hold conventions have the policy of a gun free zone.
Each one has armed security by the hotels, it's their policy.
It has nothing to do with the cpac convention.

But it does with conservative hypocrisy.

 

[kaz]

I want a gun now, why should the government be allowed to delay me 3-6 months and ask me to pay $600 just because "they feel like it"?

Because the gun represents a danger to society and you can't prove just by showing up to buy a gun that you can handle or are capable of the responsibility.

But who is requiring a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 fee? Or did you just make that shit up to make a hyperbolic point because the rest of your argument is garbage?

Again, are you OK with a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for a woman to get an abortion?

Abortions don't kill people; guns do.

Abortions don't protect people, guns do.

Also, abortions aren't protected rights in the Constitution, guns are

 

[The Derp]

Abortions don't protect people, guns do.

Abortions do protect people; the life of the mother if there's something wrong with the fetus.

No, guns don't protect people...people protect people.

Also, abortions aren't protected rights in the Constitution, guns are

Actually, you're wrong and abortions are Constitutionally protected. It was the entire basis of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Stop posting stupid things.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Almost every thread at USMB points to one clear conclusion.....
The Radical Left is completely incompatible with the US Constitution.

What are we gonna do? THAT's the question.

 

[kaz]

Abortions don't protect people, guns do.

Abortions do protect people; the life of the mother if there's something wrong with the fetus.

No, guns don't protect people...people protect people.

OK, so you only support abortions when something is "wrong with the fetus?"

Also, abortions aren't protected rights in the Constitution, guns are

Actually, you're wrong and abortions are Constitutionally protected. It was the entire basis of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Stop posting stupid things.

That was made up law by the SCOTUS. Abortions aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore by the 10th amendment they have no say either way on abortions

 

[Timmy]

Almost every thread at USMB points to one clear conclusion.....
The Radical Left is completely incompatible with the US Constitution.

What are we gonna do? THAT's the question.

The right only cares about the second amendment. They would tear up the rest of the constitution.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Now explain yourself. Are you a judge or a lawyer?

Hopefully neither.....the LAST thing this nation needs is more imbeciles and anti-Americans like those on the 9th circus and practically ANY Leftist bench or courtroom

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The right only cares about the second amendment. They would tear up the rest of the constitution.

That's still WAY better than snowflakes.

They don't care for EITHER